I think there is a difference in knowing things and knowing nature of mind. We use to learn in our human life. Like students who are repeating and repeating their long course in order to lock it sharply up in the storehouse to can accomplish their examination.

Then there is understanding of the Buddha's teachings, which as far as i understand conteins /is knowing ' the nature of mind', this knowing turns in freshness, always fresh right now in clarity, joy, compassion since there is peace.

Oh yes, there are debates, prayers, sutras, tantras to lighten darkness, if all goes smoothly.

The example of the Vietnamese teacher about the hard knowledge, is like throwing ice cubes to each others' solid head, i mean not this happen here.

Knowing nature is soft flowing, is compassionate. Like nectar Tsoknyi Rinpoche should say.

Being only simple wind (yes from there) and having nothing to say what isn't already offered. It reminds me on my kind master when he said something like this: "I have no cleverness to say". It was a genuine compassionate stamp under my deluded ass. But no ears I had! Now at least I can try to blow over all teaching without settling down and grasp, aware of having no pockets.

Some words by Thich Nhat Hanh: " Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. Al systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth.

Do not think that the knowledge you presently posses is changeless, absolute truth. Avoid being narrow-minded and bound to present views. Learn and practice non-attachment from views in order to be open to recieve others' viewpoints. Truth is found in life and not merely in conceptual knowledge. Be ready to learn throughout your entire life and to observe reality in yourself and in the world at all times.

Do not force others by any means whatsoever to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, propaganda or even education. However, through compassionate dialogue, help others renounce fanaticism and narrowness.

This is Mara. By deliberately acting against your conscience, you create karma. Conscience is a different name for morality, and morality is a gift from society. That is why isolation is practiced almost in every religion. It is natural barrier to keep people together like fence keeps cows together. Yes, it hurts... otherwise how would it work? What is being hurt?

I assume you are saying " By deliberately acting against your conscience, you create unwholesome karma."Provided the person is not having delusions and confusing what is right and wrong imo. ..As in his conscience is not malfunctioning and confusing what is right and wrong. ..

oushi wrote:So nothing trustworthy. Differentiation mechanism based on karma and "external" sources. Certainly nothing to defend, and still most defended.

So you are saying there is no such thιng as unwholeome behaviour based in ignorance? Are you saying that morality and ethics are unecessary? That the Eightfold Noble Path is a just window dressing?

Like I said to you before, you are suffering from the trap "emptiness arising an enemy":

Intelligent beings understand that nothing really exists, without being contaminated by the fault of viewing emptiness as nothingness. They are aware of the unfailing principle of the relative level, where the law of cause and effect of wholesome and harmful action and interdependent origination is effective in the unhindered dynamic expression of appearances. Even if their realisation is vast as space, they are extremely conscientious in their conduct and train to unite the two levels, being concerned about auspicious coincidence. They train themselves on the path of the union of view and conduct without ever moving out of emptiness...This present explanation takes into consideration the relative aspect and is supposed to prevent beginners who take these concepts too literally, to get into destructive talk.

Karmapa Wangchug Dorje Mahamudra - The Ocean of True Meaning

Put simply: As long as one is mired in ignorance (which we all are) they should not disregard the positive consequences of ethical behaviour and the negative consequences of unwholesome behaviour.

oushi wrote:So nothing trustworthy. Differentiation mechanism based on karma and "external" sources. Certainly nothing to defend, and still most defended.

So you are saying there is no such thιng as unwholeome behaviour based in ignorance? Are you saying that morality and ethics are unecessary? That the Eightfold Noble Path is a just window dressing?

I'm saying what unwholesome bahavior, based in ignorance, is. What morality and ethics are necessary for?Eightfold Noble Path is there, so you can realize your clinging, no matter what's the object of it. We can clearly see that you cling to morality and ethics, don't you?

As long as one is mired in ignorance (which we all are) they should not disregard the positive consequences of ethical behaviour and the negative consequences of unwholesome behaviour.

oushi wrote:I'm saying what unwholesome bahavior, based in ignorance, is.

I don't really undertand what you are trying to say here.

What morality and ethics are necessary for?Eightfold Noble Path is there, so you can realize your clinging, no matter what's the object of it. We can clearly see that you cling to morality and ethics, don't you?

Are we talking about a different Noble Eightfold Path? Coz the one I know talks about things like: wisdom, ethical conduct and samadhi. What does the one you know of talk about?

As long as one is mired in ignorance (which we all are) they should not disregard the positive consequences of ethical behaviour and the negative consequences of unwholesome behaviour.

Then stay there, but speak for yourself.

What are you talking about? Are you trying to say that you are not ignorant, that you are enlightened? Are you trying to say that the accumulation of merit, through wholesome acts, is not the precondition for the existence of causes and conditions for overcoming ignorance? Are you saying that ignorance is not the cause of suffering? What exactly are you saying?

Maybe you are not a Buddhist? I mean if you are not then just come out and say it coz I presumed you were a Buddhist.

oushi wrote:Path leading to cessation of suffering caused by craving. But as I understand, you say that craving is overcome by... craving?

No.

I am saying, that as you disagree with what I say, you shouldn't be speaking in my name. You admit that you are ignorant, but still you try to enforce your views. What for?

As much as I would like the Noble Eightfold Path to have been my "invention" I have to admit that it was actually spelt out by Shakyamuni Buddha, it is his view. Take it up with him.

Where do you keep those merits? How many you need for proclaiming yourself a Buddha?

In the mindstream. Some say the Alaya. You need an infinite quantity of merit to reach enlightenment. Ever read the Jataka?

Where? And what do you think ignorance is? Insufficient merits, try again later?

Go read what I wrote, I did not say that merit ends ignorance, I said that accumulating merit sets up the cause and conditions for one to be able to overcome ignorance. How is it that you happen to have a human body and contact with the Dharma? Luck? Fate? God? Don't worry, I'll answer it for you: KARMA.

gregkavarnos wrote:As much as I would like the Noble Eightfold Path to have been my "invention" I have to admit that it was actually spelt out by Shakyamuni Buddha, it is his view. Take it up with him.

If you would understand it, you wouldn't be ignorant. If you don't understand it, how can you use it as an argument?

gregkavarnos wrote:Go read what I wrote, I did not say that merit ends ignorance, I said that accumulating merit sets up the cause and conditions for one to be able to overcome ignorance.

Whats the difference? How many merits do you need to set up the stage?

gregkavarnos wrote:I'll leave you to define that for yourself.

What for? What do you wan't to achieve by directing me toward this self-judgment and classification?

gregkavarnos wrote:As much as I would like the Noble Eightfold Path to have been my "invention" I have to admit that it was actually spelt out by Shakyamuni Buddha, it is his view. Take it up with him.

If you would understand it, you wouldn't be ignorant. If you don't understand it, how can you use it as an argument?

Well obviously you understand it. I, the ognorant fool, will now bow out.

Whats the difference? How many merits do you need to set up the stage?

I already answered that question.

What for? What do you wan't to achieve by directing me toward this self-judgment and classification?

Yawn!

A little something from Saraha:

The single seed of everythingis mind whereexistence and nirvana both arise;

Ervin wrote:If you believe that karma exists you give it power that way. If you stop believing in karma then it stops existing. You create your world to a great extent with your beliefs or should I say expectations.

Thoughts

Thanks

Believes is holding on, isn't? Holding on = > karma. Knowledge in Dharma is in order to understand how we are free nature, to understand what is samsara. Therefore the Four Noble Truths are a good explanation.

To hold on knowledge is samsara as well, we then see it as real solid phenomena, while it is more like useful guiding smoke. Okay, this as well is only a smoke-expression.

Thank you.

ps here an example: "When we hold on to the mode of appearance of things, the conventional truth, as having some kind of true existence, then the various kinds of sufferings arise, and the various disturbing emotions. So conditioned existence or samsara arises from holding onto the way things appear as being real, as being true, as having some kind of innate existence."Same for conventional knowledges like texts study.

"Enlightened beings choose to be compassionate, they are not forced to. They also know that it would be foolish to act without compassion. How is that not free will?"Does an enlightened being choose? Is not enlightenment synonymous with compassion? It all happens automatically. There is no choosing, no rejecting. It is choiceless!